Why don't the U.S. military build heavy turret emplacements/automated towers?

[Sea Skimmer]

Since this thread wont die.... Iraq has come up with an excellent third path compromise. Towed tank turret!

https://youtu.be/iE1UH4LNMD0?t=107

Is using a S-60 carriage if anyone is wondering.

[Zeropoint]

That is gloriously crazy in the best Mad Max way!

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Since this thread wont die.... Iraq has come up with an excellent third path compromise. Towed tank turret!

https://youtu.be/iE1UH4LNMD0?t=107

Is using a S-60 carriage if anyone is wondering.

You do what you can when you're trying to rebuild your military and your country.

[Isolder74]

The Nazis had a motor gun carriage who's only job was to carry a gun turret to a concrete bunker and place the turret on it then retreat topic up another turret to deploy.

Spoiler: It didn't work all that well and was the waste of a chassis.

[Sidewinder]

Since this thread wont die.... Iraq has come up with an excellent third path compromise. Towed tank turret!

https://youtu.be/iE1UH4LNMD0?t=107

Is using a S-60 carriage if anyone is wondering.

Will the future see something like the mobile fortresses the Terrans used in the 'Starcraft' games? That might diminish historical fortresses' vulnerability to air and artillery attack- moving the whole damn fortress out of the enemy's reach. (Granted, it'll be a long, long time before we develop the technology to move something that damn heavy.)

[Zeropoint]

I think the problem with fixed fortresses is that there ISN'T any "out of the enemy's reach". Besides, if you're out of the enemy's reach, why do you need defenses?

[Simon_Jester]

Basically, what it comes down to is that the sheer size and weight of protection you need to stop modern weapons from hurting you when they hit is just utterly beyond ridiculous. And the accuracy of modern weapons is such that they will score hits. So having firepower of your own and getting them before they get you are important, while being massively armored is relatively unimportant.

Adding some tiny amount of mobility to a hugely (but inadequately) armored structure won't help very much.

[FTeik]

I think the problem with fixed fortresses is that there ISN'T any "out of the enemy's reach". Besides, if you're out of the enemy's reach, why do you need defenses?

You yourself might be out of reach of the enemy, but not the things you need to protect (cities, factories, farmland, ...).

[LaCroix]

I think the problem with fixed fortresses is that there ISN'T any "out of the enemy's reach". Besides, if you're out of the enemy's reach, why do you need defenses?

You yourself might be out of reach of the enemy, but not the things you need to protect (cities, factories, farmland, ...).

Nitpick: When these are in reach, you are as well...

That's what the "traditional" SAM or other AA defense unit is for.

Plop it down in a site to protect, and it will mean that the enemy air raid is having to either use longer range weapons on targets (with less destructive power as the payload will consist of more fuel than with shorter ranges) or has to divert some attack capabilities to fight the defences, again reducing the payload on target.

Enough of these, and cost/effect along with the increased risk of losing valuable assets in the attack will make the math come out at the side of not being worth it.

Putting a lot of concrete around these defences (beyond a few simple barricades to protect against near misses from cheap weapons, forcing them to use more expensive, guided ones) is not improving that calculation, as most hits will be good enough to mission kill the weapon, anyway. This is not C&C where the unit will fire back until the health bar is down to zero.

[Sea Skimmer]

Will the future see something like the mobile fortresses the Terrans used in the 'Starcraft' games?

You mean the thing they call a tank?

See for most of the history of the proper permanent fortress, building them was an offensive act, a way of subduing and controlling a region by providing a stable base and store of supplies for field troops, while requiring the smallest possible garrison. That is why for example most European castles were incredibly small, the garrison cost a damn lot of money otherwise and you wanted as many offensive troops as possible on a budget. The main weapon of a castle was the knight riding out of it, and he was the best armored, armed and mobile weapon of his day. That made a great deal of sense.

This is also the role permanent fortifications largely play today, protecting supply, communications and air base facilities vital to offensive power. You can also find a lot of permanent fortifications in Korea which act as shelters for mobile weapons, but that's something special brought about largely by the constricted landscape vs. huge force density involved. Even the the weapons are mobile and move in and out of the shelters is key to their value. It means for example the gun barrels cannot easily be destroyed. This also means when a artillery piece becomes obsolete no added cost is invoked in the upgrade, you simply park something better in the bunker. And since the weapon can hide completely, the enemy does not know if it's occupied or not.

The reign of the purely defensive fortress with an integral fixed armament was rather short, transitional, and most of them never proved to make any real sense for the cost except as shore defenses. But that again was basically to ensure a small garrison could defend a port, which was a base for offensive ships, allowing those ships to go off and pillage an enemy port. The Nazi's tried to line a coast with fixed guns and it proved to be a colossal failure.

The castle offensive-defensive concept died out with the decline of fuedalism, something that was greatly accelerated by gunpowder blowing down the walls of all the old small castles of Europe in the 15th century and early 16th century. New styles of fortification emerged, ways to stabilize frontiers and protect economic resources directly, but they were ruinously expensive and even in the era, basically field troops were always a better use of money. But people feared field battles a lot in that period of history for other reasons. In any case the armament remained mobile, and importantly the gunpowder could be moved even if the cannon themselves were too heavy for the field. Gunpowder was a huge expense, famously the English fleet against the Armada was equipped by stripping all the fortresses in the country. An all or nothing gamble that paid off.

Also worth pointing out one of the most common types of modern permanent fortification, hardened aircraft shelters, got going as much to protect planes from themselves as from enemy fire (most are functionally only proof against 30mm strafing). This is because while planes in WW2 could be dispersed highly on dirt and grass taxiways, fast jets need hardstand. Which means parking them near the runways, which means a lot of risk of a chain reaction explosion of the aircraft's own heavy offensive weapons. In the US case the Bien Hoa Air Base explosion prompted such shelters two years before the Six Days war made them common around the world. Even without doors a lightweight HAS, 7mm steel and 18-24in concrete being typical, can nearly eliminate the sympathetic detonation risk. People really really tend to ignore this issue as its little talked about in general, but the design origins are super clear on paper.

Many HAS look more impressive then a US TAB-V as I described above, but the earth berming on them is thin for concealment and offers no realistic added protection, it can actually make bombing worse by tamping the explosions. This is why USAF shelters are never buried. A couple feet of dirt will make no useful difference against any real weapon that could already penetrate the concrete.

Iraq tried building shelters that would withstand heavy bombing, it worked SO WELL they began parking the aircraft outside the shelters....turned out an F-117 had trouble seeing a cold parked plane at night on FLIR but the thick shelters held the sun better and were obvious. Building even heavier shelters while possible would be would be futile as penetrating bombs already improved 2-3x over what was used in the Gulf War, and that's without any rocket boosting.

[Archinist]

Ah. I haven't read all of the thread, but what would happen if a country made it's entire army be based off one singular gigantic mobile fortress the size of a large city, with giant treads to move it around and a bunch of nuclear reactors to power it. It could be fitted with hundreds of artillery cannons, thousands of flak cannons, tens of thousands of MG turrets, more thousands of direct fire 'tank' turrets lined across it, a few hundred ICBM launchers, and of course enough factories and storage facilities to fully supply the mobile fort. Also there would be aircraft hangars, vehicle bay, boat launchers, ridiculously thick armor at some points more than 1 kilometre thick, and all of that. How well would that work in the modern age?

[Jub]

Ah. I haven't read all of the thread,

I'd suggest you do so, you might learn something; especially given the epically retarded nature of your question.

[W]hat would happen if a country made it's entire army be based off one singular gigantic mobile fortress the size of a large city, with giant treads to move it around and a bunch of nuclear reactors to power it. It could be fitted with hundreds of artillery cannons, thousands of flak cannons, tens of thousands of MG turrets, more thousands of direct fire 'tank' turrets lined across it, aircraft hangars, vehicle bay, boat launchers, ridiculously thick armor at some points more than 1 kilometre thick, and all of that. How well would that work in the modern age?

I'm going to ignore cost because anybody seriously proposing this would need an unlimited budget.

First off it would, by its very nature, be very slow and restricted in where it could go. Even if we assume ground pressure manages to be low enough that it can run on moderately packed earth, not a given by any stretch, it would still have to go around things like low hills, not to mention mountain ranges. It also puts all your eggs in one basket, so if it's on the east coast of the US and the enemy engages your western coast you're fucked.

Second, it would take so long to build that by the time it was finished it would be obsolete. A modern warship can already take years to build, this... thing would take decades.

Third, the armor wouldn't matter because all the exposed turrets, not to mention the tracks, and such would still be vulnerable to attack. The enemy would just fling nukes at the damned thing and mission kill your boondoggle before it ever got within range to use it's tank turrets, and boat launches and what have you.

There are many, many more reasons this idea is stupid, but frankly, you're a moron and I already feel like I've wasted my time in going this far.

I have half a mind to report your post just because you've gone from being adorably stupid to terminally annoying in a very short span on these boards and I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way.

[Archinist]

Ah. I haven't read all of the thread,

What about if it was from a third-world country where slavery was still a thing. and so they just gathered up millions of slaves and recycled materials from shanty towns and poor cities they don't care about? Then it would be finished a bit earlier, and what country would use a nuke just for one unit? It's a large unit, sure, but I doubt any Western country would just nuke it. And they especially couldn't nuke it if it drove next to a friendly city. There would be no way to destroy it other than attacking it directly. Plus it could be loaded up with it's own nuclear missiles as well.

There would also be the fact that some countries would be hesitant to kill such a massive amount of people all at once as well, there would be hundreds of thousands of people on it, some of them not even military personnel.

[Jub]

Ah. I haven't read all of the thread,

What about if it was from a third-world country where slavery was still a thing. and so they just gathered up millions of slaves and recycled materials from shanty towns and poor cities they don't care about? Then it would be finished a bit earlier, and what country would use a nuke just for one unit? It's a large unit, sure, but I doubt any Western country would just nuke it. And they especially couldn't nuke it if it drove next to a friendly city. There would be no way to destroy it other than attacking it directly. Plus it could be loaded up with it's own nuclear missiles as well.

Poor nations are often poor because of a lack of organization. This isn't a climate conducive to megaprojects, not to mention that such a nation wouldn't have the technical know how to create anything on this scale. As for recycling materials, that doesn't matter, just making the armor alone would take forever, let alone the cable runs, air vents, air conditioning, hydraulic lines, sewage, etc...

As for nuking it, you said it contains that nation's entire military if this nation ever went to war against a nuclear power that fortress would be dead. This vehicle, by its nature, would be so slow it would never get close to a city, so your scenario of it ever getting to an enemy city is impossible. If it went against a lesser power, the fortress would be purely a defensive unit as the fortress would be too slow and too easily bogged down to use on the attack. Hell, even if it did get there what use would it have for a ship launch on land or the ability to deploy tanks at the seas side? So much of this tank would just be dead weight all the time.

Seriously, just try thinking logically, with the parts of your brain that aren't terminally retarded and you'll see why this abomination is the worst idea you've ever had.

[InsaneTD]

Don't forget the air filtration it would need. Both for NBC and just CO2 from all the people.

[LaCroix]

Just saying - the company estimated a bout 800 hours of work to install the electrics in my new house (~200m² total, with a pretty "intelligent" electric to be installed, so quite similar to what you'd need for this mobile bunker hill).
Scaling this up to the dozens of square km of this monstrosity ins enough to let cold shivers run down my spine...

[Simon_Jester]

See, Archinist's original question (why don't modern militaries use big bunkers and turret guns) was reasonable.

This question, by contrast, is just plain too stupid. It's so childish, and his attempts to make it 'work' are so silly, that Archinist is either a child, mentally disabled, or trolling.

[Sea Skimmer]

Ah. I haven't read all of the thread, but what would happen if a country made it's entire army be based off one singular gigantic mobile fortress

It would never be able to move, and asking if ducks could block out the sun would be less childishly stupid. You obviously have some kind of interest in the world, but far more painfully obvious is that you don't read a thing about it. Not this thread and not anything useful in life ever, which is why you know nothing about how anything works.

Little suggestion, stop being here, use the time to browse wikipedia. You might get somewhere doing it. If you keep going through life being a blithe follower you're going to have regrets.

See, Archinist's original question (why don't modern militaries use big bunkers and turret guns) was reasonable.

This question, by contrast, is just plain too stupid. It's so childish, and his attempts to make it 'work' are so silly, that Archinist is either a child, mentally disabled, or trolling.

No he's probably a child like young adult who thinks reddit counts as reading the news. I've encountered the type before. Probably does follow things explained too him to some degree, but out of ignorance his only way of understanding more is to ask another bolt from the blue question, rather then being able to understand a rational baseline. He's making a baseline out of extremes on some level. But he won't go further then what he's spoon fed, and arrogant to boot.

[Archinist]

Have you never read a science fiction book or a fantasy novel before? This being a site called with "star destroyer" and a massive picture of a star destroyer in the name, I would have thought that questioning whether a certain fictional build or design would be quite reasonable, but apparently not?

It's not like it's a completely out of whack idea, it's a massive moving platform of artillery and guns. I am not a military expert, so I was just asking if it would be at least somewhat effective in real life. How am I supposed to know that it wouldn't be? If you showed a giant brick filled with guns and turrets to the average person, they would probably think it incredibly strong and impenetrable for the present-day military.

Hell, there are plenty of people who think that a modern military could be defeated by a medieval military of similar or smaller size, and that bullets would simply bounce off the knight's armor, and that apparently every single soldier is a knight but also runs faster than a horse and is impossibly accurate with a bow and arrow, and that archers could just snipe the noisy helicopters out of the air, trebuchets could one shot tanks with extreme precision, and knights could charge through infantry lines like a hot knife through butter.

If they can think this and function perfectly normally in society, I should be allowed to fantasize about giant mobile fortresses decked out with artillery and turrets being a threat to other, mobile modern armies and be completely fine.

----

Reading reddit and internet news websites does count as reading the newspaper or any physical form of news, except it's actually better. Instead of gathering news from only one local source, which was relevant to a few days ago, you can get hundreds of different sources from around the world all at once, some reporting only hours after an incident has occurred.

[Khaat]

Veracity in your gathered data is important. Your souce being foolish makes you look foolish. Learn to find better sources through skeptical analysis; learn from your mistakes; turn down your ego.

"Echo chamber" is a thing. Learn when a widely-held position is such because it's rationally derived, and when it's only the accepted idea for emotional satisfaction.

"Fanboy" is derrogatory online for a reason. Learn to tell the difference between "brand loyalty" and "rational analysis and deduction." Only rational analysis and deduction deserve your continued attention.

[Raw Shark]

Have you never read a science fiction book or a fantasy novel before?

I have! I enjoy them very much.

This being a site called with "star destroyer" and a massive picture of a star destroyer in the name, I would have thought that questioning whether a certain fictional build or design would be quite reasonable, but apparently not?

Question whatever you want. Don't get your panties in a twist when you get answered.

It's not like it's a completely out of whack idea, it's a massive moving platform of artillery and guns. I am not a military expert, so I was just asking if it would be at least somewhat effective in real life. How am I supposed to know that it wouldn't be? If you showed a giant brick filled with guns and turrets to the average person, they would probably think it incredibly strong and impenetrable for the present-day military.

Actually it is a completely out of whack idea for multiple reasons stated above. You show it to the average person, even an average armed person like me out in the woods with my rifle, and that average person will get on the phone with the Army or the National Guard or whatever ASAP, and a few minutes later it's over. It'd probably make the news, the way a puppy being rescued from a well does.

Hell, there are plenty of people who think that a modern military could be defeated by a medieval military of similar or smaller size, and that bullets would simply bounce off the knight's armor, and that apparently every single soldier is a knight but also runs faster than a horse and is impossibly accurate with a bow and arrow, and that archers could just snipe the noisy helicopters out of the air, trebuchets could one shot tanks with extreme precision, and knights could charge through infantry lines like a hot knife through butter.

There are plenty of people who think that? You know them? Please euthanize them before they reproduce. I don't personally know anybody who thinks that, and I know some serious moonbeams who believe some wild shit, don't get me started on that.

If they can think this and function perfectly normally in society, I should be allowed to fantasize about giant mobile fortresses decked out with artillery and turrets being a threat to other, mobile modern armies and be completely fine.

Depends on your definitions of, "normally," and, "fine," I guess. You're allowed to fantasize about whatever you want. Shit, I fantasize about dragons and superheroes and pornographic scenarios and whatnot. But we're also allowed to tell you that it is very unrealistic.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Ah. I haven't read all of the thread, but what would happen if a country made it's entire army be based off one singular gigantic mobile fortress the size of a large city, with giant treads to move it around and a bunch of nuclear reactors to power it. It could be fitted with hundreds of artillery cannons, thousands of flak cannons, tens of thousands of MG turrets, more thousands of direct fire 'tank' turrets lined across it, a few hundred ICBM launchers, and of course enough factories and storage facilities to fully supply the mobile fort. Also there would be aircraft hangars, vehicle bay, boat launchers, ridiculously thick armor at some points more than 1 kilometre thick, and all of that. How well would that work in the modern age?

That country would be bankrupt, and a B-52 would reduce it to scrap with a single bomb run from high altitude. Or a TLAM stike would wreck it instantly.

[Archinist]

Ah. I haven't read all of the thread, but what would happen if a country made it's entire army be based off one singular gigantic mobile fortress the size of a large city, with giant treads to move it around and a bunch of nuclear reactors to power it. It could be fitted with hundreds of artillery cannons, thousands of flak cannons, tens of thousands of MG turrets, more thousands of direct fire 'tank' turrets lined across it, a few hundred ICBM launchers, and of course enough factories and storage facilities to fully supply the mobile fort. Also there would be aircraft hangars, vehicle bay, boat launchers, ridiculously thick armor at some points more than 1 kilometre thick, and all of that. How well would that work in the modern age?

That country would be bankrupt, and a B-52 would reduce it to scrap with a single bomb run from high altitude. Or a TLAM stike would wreck it instantly.

Well, I guess I agree that it wouldn't work very well, but you still have to agree that the sheer fact that it requires nuclear bombs to destroy it is a pretty big deal. I mean, there has never, ever been a single enemy unit that has been almost completely impenetrable outside of nuclear weapons at all in all of human war history, so you can probably agree that it would cause serious damage to a country that for some reason let it creep into their soil without noticing it coming, say for instance it drove there during peacetime, and then became hostile to that country during wartime. It could creep around the enemy cities and be very difficult to kill, while being capable of great damage.

Of course if it was in the middle of nowhere when war broke out it would be completely useless and probably get destroyed quickly, but it might actually be of some use if it was already in an enemy's borders.

A B-52 could not destroy it with just a standard bomb from high altitude, as it has over 1 kilometre of top-facing armor. So it couldn't just drop a few 2000 pound bombs on it and expect it to be destroyed, plus the sheer size of it would make it possible for there to be dangerous survivors even after being hit by multi-kiloton nuclear bombs.

[Isolder74]

Your mobile fortress in concept for mobility would be the same as a 'mobile' artillery that was built by Nazi Germany in WWII. The Schwerer Gustav was a massive waste of resources and the gun was only useful against very limited number of targets. All it ever did was tie up thousands of troops to man it that would have been more useful in other duties.

The only way to move the gun was to lay down 4 sets of train tracks and to move it on command meant having a division of troops who's only job was to lay tracks for it to move on. A land battleship, which is what your proposed mobile fortress is, would be very impractical and would not be mobile in any sense of the word. Hitler wasted tons of resources trying to force the design and production of the Mass and Ratte uber tanks and he never once considered the viability on the battlefield.

We berate you for doing the same. If you don't like having your stupidity being pointed out perhaps it's because your ideas have little to no merit.

Yes we all here think that AT-AT's are cool but we almost all agree that building one would be a nightmare.

[Raw Shark]

you still have to agree that the sheer fact that it requires nuclear bombs to destroy it is a pretty big deal. [snip]

Nobody has asserted that nukes would be necessary, you ridiculous fucking idiot. They'd make it easier, sure, but any first-world nation deserving of the title could reduce it to scrap in minutes using conventional arms as soon as some random guy (who might not last very much longer on this mortal coil, but good on his effort) informed them of it.